[Bug 1861887] New: Review Request: rocksdb - A Persistent Key-Value Store for Flash and RAM Storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1861887
Bug ID: 1861887 Summary: Review Request: rocksdb - A Persistent Key-Value Store for Flash and RAM Storage Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: hegjon@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org//rocksdb.spec SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org//rocksdb-6.11.4-2.fc32.src.rpm
Description: Rocksdb is a library that forms the core building block for a fast key value server, especially suited for storing data on flash drives. It has a Log-Structured-Merge-Database (LSM) design with flexible trade offs between Write-Amplification-Factor (WAF), Read-Amplification-Factor (RAF) and Space-Amplification-Factor (SAF). It has multithreaded compaction, making it specially suitable for storing multiple terabytes of data in a single database.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1861887
Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #1 from Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com --- The build fails on i686 https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=48125640
I have created an issue upstream https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/7188
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1861887
Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Link ID| |Github | |facebook/rocksdb/issues/718 | |8
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1861887
Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Link ID| |Fedora Pagure | |releng/issue/9628
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1861887
--- Comment #2 from Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com --- RocksDB was orphaned for over 8 weeks, a new review is needed. The old review is bug #1250025
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1861887
Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com --- - %{__make} → make
Variable starting with __ are for rpm private use.
- Add a comment above the patch to explain what it does/why it is needed
- Rename your patch to have a meaningful name
Patch0: https://patch-diff.githubusercontent.com/raw/facebook/rocksdb/pull/7187.patc...
Package approved, please fix the aforementioned issue before import.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rocksdb See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "Public domain", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "Apache License 2.0". 1606 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/rocksdb/review-rocksdb/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: rocksdb-6.11.4-2.fc34.x86_64.rpm rocksdb-devel-6.11.4-2.fc34.x86_64.rpm rocksdb-debuginfo-6.11.4-2.fc34.x86_64.rpm rocksdb-debugsource-6.11.4-2.fc34.x86_64.rpm rocksdb-6.11.4-2.fc34.src.rpm rocksdb.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multithreaded -> multicolored rocksdb.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/librocksdb.so.6.11.4 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 rocksdb.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multithreaded -> multicolored 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1861887
--- Comment #4 from Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 from comment #3)
- %{__make} → make
Variable starting with __ are for rpm private use.
Add a comment above the patch to explain what it does/why it is needed
Rename your patch to have a meaningful name
Patch0: https://patch-diff.githubusercontent.com/raw/facebook/rocksdb/pull/7187. patch#/0001-your-fancy-name.patch
Package approved, please fix the aforementioned issue before import.
Thanks for the review, I will fix those issues before import.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1861887
Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Assignee|zebob.m@gmail.com |hegjon@gmail.com Last Closed| |2020-09-03 10:32:59
--- Comment #5 from Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com --- Have fixed the issues and resurrected the package
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com